About your Search

20130201
20130209
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
these different languages and religions and basically for the first 50 years, almost -- certainly first several decades, people back in washington were saying, what have we done here? we've conquered this land but dough don't understand and it we can't good afternoon it. we should just give it back. give it back to mexico. it's too hard to run this place. there was so much violence. there was slavery and there was hostage taking and -- just unfamiliar country that people in washington didn't know what to do with. that's part two. part three is about kit carson's role in the conquest of the navajo people, and everything he did with that. monster slayer it's called, and this is from the final act of his long career, and it's probably what he is best known for, this sort of a scorched earth campaign he led into navajo country that resulted in their conquest and their removal from their beloved lands, and this great experiment that went on to try to force the navajo to become -- to settle down and become farmers and christians living in this sort of reservation on the border with texas. so it's a b
in the battle with some religion non-profit organizations over the requirement they offer birth control coverage in their health insurance packages. while today's shift is significant, it also leaves out a big group that is also suing the government. chief washington correspondent james rosen tells us what triggered the change. >> under the new rules proposed by health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius non-profit religious employers will be able to opt out of the obamacare mandate of female contraceptive in the healthcare plan. instead insurers will be required to provide coverage, including standard birth control and items like the morning after pill. the white house says the modifications meet president obama's overarching goals. >> we had to ensure the women have access to preventative services like contraception. the policy also respects religious beliefs. >> catholic league bill donahue held the announcement as a sign of good will toward the catholic community. because the private sector firms with religious objections are not covered by the proposal and many insurance firms ar
the war. buckley says yale is insufficiently respectful of religion despite its religious heritage and religious heritage of most of the elite academia in america. also they don't present every enterprise side of economics. they are too changing, quasi-socialist. rusher agreed with all of that. but i think the greater affinity of buckley can be seen in buckley and his brother-in-law, brent mosel's 1984 book, mccarthy and his enemies to which they say yet, mccarthy spent a little too rough. he's made some errors in judgment. but that causes really, really important. and he's being treated unfairly. that's exactly where rusher, that's exactly where rusher is in 1954-55-56, in the years where he turns from generic young republican republicanism to hard movement conservatism. there was a bit of the conservative movement even before buckley founded "national review" in 1955, but it was sort of, it was a little -- it was disorganized. the polite term might be entrepreneurial, individualist individualistic. a whittaker chambers had another way to describe it but he said it was like people
. the state has become the major religion in this country. the icons in washington -- they have to destroy every aspect of people who hold to a higher moral authority. host: the headline in this morning "the wall street journal" -- castle in michigan, on our lands for democrats. -- ethel in michigan, on our line for democrats. caller: my question is, what happened between the separation between church and state? i believe this is more of a legal issue than a religious issue. the religious issue is for the contraceptive. i can understand that. why is this being mixed in with state issues? he did not have to take them if you do not want them, if you do not believe in them. don't use them. i just cannot understand why this does not go away. i am really quite tired of it all. thank you. host: more from the article in this morning's "the wall street journal." they write -- the new rules would require insurers to pay the up-front cost. our next call comes from carol in ohio, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i am totally against what the catholic church and republicans are doing a
and the receipt. >> make themselves out to, you know, kind of be a jerk. but also play the religion card as an excuse. >> reporter: pastor elois bell was a party of ten eating at an applebees in st. louis. the pastor did not appreciate the automatic 18% gratuity charged to large groups, so she scrawled on the receipt, i give god 10%, why do you get 18% and signed it pastor. that was too much. and she posted it on reddit. >> i thought it was comically immature. >> reporter: but pastor bell wasn't laughing once the receipt went viral and posters started calling her -- >> you hypocrite pastor. >> reporter: chelsea wasn't serving that table. at the end of the night, she heard about the receipt from the actual server. >> the server calls me over and says you're not going to believe this? >> reporter: the 18% gratuity was taken directly out of the pastor's credit card. she wrote zero in the space for additional tip, but says -- >> and i put $6 on the table. >> reporter: when the "i give god 10%" receipt became news, the pastor called applebees to complain. >> that they wanted me fired, the ser
, freedom of religion, those are not just american values. the world agree to those values and the declaration, universal declaration of human rights and will stand up to them. it's not always easy in the have to pick our time. we can't be shortsighted or to penicillin continue to stand up for them. on the fundamental first level, we do what we do because it's in our security interest from economic interest in moral interest and we have to continue to do that. but as you go to the second level, how you adapt that to the world of today requires us to be more clever, more agile and wish i had do that. for example are adtran, -- there are those who estimate that maybe there are 50,000 violent homicidal extremists in the world, but they are able to maximize their impact and their messaging through the internet. but we try to do is say briefly mention is to get in there with them, undermine them and we've got them. it is something i did quite well in the cold war. the wife done this job, the more lessons i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. we don't have some mono
of religion, those are not just american values. the world agreed to those values in the declaration, universal declaration of human rights and will stand up for them. it's not always easy and we have to pick our time. we can't be shortsighted or did, but will continue to stand up for them. and the fundamental first level, we do what we do because it's in our security interest, economic interests in more interests and we have to continue to do that. but then as you go to the second level, how you adapt that to the world that today requires us to be more clever, more agile and were trying to do that. for example, countering violent extremism, does this to me there are maybe 50,000 violent homicidal extremists in the world, but they are able to maximize their impact and messaging today and are not and what we try to do is to get in there with him, to undermine non-and to rebut them. to dissent than we did quite well in the cold war. the more i've done this job, the more i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. no, we don't have some monolithic communist soviet union. but we
of religion with tower of babel, we know that language is essential to having an economy and country that stays together. this is a public school and the language used by the government of the united states most often is tkpwhreurb, english and these kids should be reciting the pledge of allegiance in english. >>gretchen: liz? >> i understand what you're saying. but i also believe if the children are speaking other languages, they should be allowed to say the pledge of allegiance in their languages. we live in a melting pot here in the united states where there are many different cultures and children speak many different languages and i feel they should be allowed to say the pledge of allegiance in their language if that's something they choose to do. >>gretchen: the thing for me, ladies, i guess i break it down on to what they were actually reciting. if they were reciting a nursery rhyme, then i don't think we'd be having this discussion. they were reciting the pledge of allegiance, which is our patriotic pledge to this country. and in fact, the immigration debate on capitol hill r
are going to be the ones running this at the end. >> she is going to drug you what america's religion which is democracy and everyone in america loves democracy. on a grant that. i plead guilty to taking that. >> and i am right there with you but this is not about -- there is much more going on here to get anybody that knows the middle east knows that the borders were drawn around people that don't necessarily want to live together. we have seen this in israel, palestinians and jews do not want to live together. now, we could say let's have democracy and have a one state solution. joost not want a one-stop solution and palestinians do not want a one-stop solution. it's not about the democracy in palestine and israel and its about the democracy in iraq. we said was going to make democracy and cast the sunni is down. they were not. they pushed the sunnis out of every job in the military, the government, the education system and that is what is going to have been anybody that thinks that when the takeover and syria that they are going to incorporate the national institutions into the next stat
when i talk about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, those are not just american values. the world agreed to those values and we are going to stand up for them. it is not always easy. we have to pick our time. on the first level, do what we do because it is in our interests. as you got to the second level, how you adapt that to the world of today requires us to be more clever we are trying to do that. count during a violent extremism. maybe there are 50,000 violent homicidal extremist in the world. but they are able to maximize their impact and their messaging through the internet. what we have tried to do is to get in there with them, to undermine them and to rebut them. it is something we did in the cold war. more lessons i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. we don't have some monolithic soviet union. we were engaged in pushing out our ideas and our values, refuting communist propaganda. the cold war ended. "democracy has triumphed. we do not have to do that anymore." that's a terrible mistake. i have tried to convince congress and others if we do not ha
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)